Readers' comments

The claim that union members are being targeted for homicide in Colombia is bizarre in view of the actual data. Union members seem to be unreasonably safe from attack compared to the general population. The numbers are summarized in an unpublished, but well-known, paper by Daniel Mejía and Maria José Uribe at the Universidad de los Andes. An extended English-language summary by the authors may be found at:

But, I suspect most would find the numbers presented by Mejía and Uribe to lead so unambiguously to their conclusion that even supposed large errors would not alter the result. Besides, the arithmetic of union membership, murder rates, and population in Colombia is not rocket science.

The Obama Administration has usually been more careful than most to base its foreign policy on real facts instead of ideologically inspired urban myths (like Iraqi WMDs). This is perhaps an exception -- but its a big one.

Many Latin American countries, including US closest partner, Mexico, are indeed fed up with American disdain. The concept of solidarity, as espoused in Europe, is quite foreign for Americans, who believe that the magic of "free" trade will manage to make its southern neighbours instantly rich... of course "free" being defined, as it has been in effect under NAFTA, as having heavy subsidies for local producers and violating the provisions of the agreement when politically necessary (e.g. Mexican truck drivers still waiting for the borders to be open). Despite the unpleasant circumstances of the current economic crisis, nobody can deny that thanks to European solidarity, poorer countries, like Spain, Ireland and even Britan that managed to negotiate the famous "rebate" back in the 80s, are now in a much better position that they would have arguably been under a simple "free" American-style trade agreement. And Germany the purported "subsidizer" still managed to attain impressive economic growth rates in 2010.

It's quite comical to see the U.S. subjecting the ratification of the trade agreement with Colombia to human rights abuses in the South American nation. As far as I know, Colombia didn't use a phony argument to bombard Irak. We never saw Colombian soldiers torturing and humiliating prisoners in Abu Ghraib. And I don't think Colombians have detainment facilities in Cuba to torture detainees as Americans do in Guantanamo. China has an extensive and far more abusive history of human rights abuses than Colombia, and Americans still signed the trade agreement with them. Colombians should leave behind America's double standards and look towards Asia. That's exactly what their neighbors are doing.

The economies of both countries are not comparable. This is just a political argument used by democrats in order to keep American unions happy. But the truth is that a free trade do more good than harm for both economies.

The US policies towards its allies in Latin America have always confounded me, as we seemingly give the cold shoulder to those that stick up for us and our economic policies and then expect them to continue to support us in the face of their socialist neighbors who try to gang up on them. As for free trade, even with the hypocritical aspects of food subsidies and 1000 pages of exemptions, there should be little doubt that it will benefit Columbia. Before NAFTA, Mexico's exports were roughly 80% petroleum related, and only 20% other goods and value-added products. Today, those numbers are reversed. While this does not directly prove causation, and there may have been a slight decline in Pemex production, it seems relatively safe to assume that NAFTA has helped to diversify the mexican economy and let to a growing middle-class. Columbia should be treated the way we treat Israel and South Korea. If it becomes obvious that their living standards are far superior than those in countries who constantly oppose US policies, it will be much easier to win over other countries in the region. They stood by the US when nobody else would, if we actually thanked them for that, others might do the same

The United States and Colombia are locked in a trade dispute, which could be viewed from either a realist or liberalist perspective. The article, “Trade Disunion,” which appeared in the February 17 edition of The Economist, looks at this issue through a predominately realist lens. The author frames the issue in terms of international competition and power.

The realist tone is evident even from the first sentence of the article. The author doe not hesitate to mention that the United States looks only to its allies for convenience, a realist idea. Congress is currently deciding if free trade with Colombia is in the best interests of the United States. If the U.S. does sign an agreement with Colombia, the U.S. would gain cheaper imports, a market for U.S. goods, a decreased flow of illegal drugs, and an increased influence in Latin America. By not signing the agreement, the United States could potentially push Colombia into the arms of its second largest trading partner, China, putting all of these gains in jeopardy and fueling the growth of China’s power and influence in the region.

Colombia realizes all of this and knows that it stands to gain from this situation. In the past, Colombia had no other choice but to rely on the U.S. as a trade partner and an international ally, but now that China has gained power and influence, Colombia has a viable option to balance against U.S. power. The author acknowledges that this is a zero-sum game that is worrying the U.S. This trade agreement is bigger than Colombia; this is about a realist struggle for hegemonic power between the United States and China.

Even though the U.S. realizes what is at stake, they have yet to sign the agreement because some within the until recently Democratically-controlled Congress have questioned the benefit of the agreement on realist, liberal, and mercantilist grounds. Having the agreement would weaken the United States’ economic power because it would cost domestic jobs. Congressional Democrats are concerned with the lack of human rights in Colombia. By having a trade agreement, this would, in effect, reward Colombia whilst they are ignoring their citizens. Some in Colombia, taking a classic liberalist approach, argue just the opposite: by having the agreement, human rights would strengthen because of international cooperation.

This is the realist explanation of the situation that the article presents. For the author, hope for a resolution to the situation lies in China’s threat to U.S. dominance. However, a liberalist might argue that the China factor is only incidental; Colombia and the United States have a long history of cooperation. While there sometimes may be setbacks and disagreements, countries often find a way to cooperate to achieve mutual benefit. Classical liberalism argues for international cooperation where everyone gains. In this situation, both Colombia and the United States gain. Free trade between the two countries would bring more revenue to both countries, and Colombia’s economy would have a decreased dependence on illegal drugs, which is certainly also a benefit to the United States, the biggest consumer of Colombian drugs.

In 2002, the Andean Trade Promotion & Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) was implemented by the George W. Bush administration to foster economic development in four Andean countries- Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru- to present an alternative to the production of cocaine. The ATPDEA enables the United States to export a multitude of goods to the Andean states without imposing tariffs in order to decrease the propagation of drugs in the region. In the article “Trade Disunion: Santos’s China Card,” the author embodies a liberal perspective on the United States’ involvement in the ATPDEA; however, the author’s argument is incomplete because he avoids incorporating realist ideals which shed relevant light on the situation. The article provides a third image view of the act because it explains the interaction between several different countries and their decisions in relation to one another.
In the article, the author takes a classical liberal stance. This viewpoint is exemplified when he states that “the ATPDEA, a tool in the American drug war, already helps Colombian exporters, so their American counterparts have more to gain from ratifying the trade agreement” (Trade Disunion). He assumes that increased interaction between states augments the trust that the two players can invest in one another. This is consistent with the complex interdependence theory outlined by Keohane in his article “Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” The amplified interactions are also grounds for improved credibility and greater certainty of the involved states’ intentions and expectations. Also, according to the liberal perspective, the best technique for coordinating a large number of players is through institutions, such as the Andean Trade Promotion & Drug Eradication Act. This institution in particular attempts to reduce drug proliferation and enhance cooperation between the United States and four of the Andean states by minimizing trade barriers. Finally, a classical liberalist would claim that absolute gains are the key to international peace and that these types of gains beget comparative advantages. Thus, rather than assuming a position of self-help and defection to maximize gains relative to other states, the members of the ATPDEA work to achieve advantages and benefits regardless of the advancement of other states. By making all of these assumptions that support the liberal theory, the author asserts that the United States should have renewed the ATPDEA in order to ensure a higher degree of peace with the Andean states.
However, in contrast to the author’s optimistically liberal view of the situation, the realist theory also has relevant insights that are worth being considered in determining the United States’ further involvement in the ATPDEA. Classical realism makes several assumptions about the world and reasons for individual states’ behavior. Firstly, the international system is inherently anarchic and therefore states can never be certain of other states’ intentions. This contradicts the liberal view that increased interaction ensures stable expectations of the future. In the context of the article, this means that, despite the ties that the United States and the participating South American states created through the ATPDEA, these countries cannot fully trust one another for fear of defection. Another realist assumption is that survival is the primary goal of major powers; this reinforces the statement that uncertainty instills fear within ruling bodies due to the possibility of unexpressed, implicit intentions. Translated into the article, this implies that one or more of the participating players may take actions that boost gains relative to one another rather than gains that improve everyone’s international standing. The explanation of the uncertainty of other states’ intentions assists in understanding why states behave the way they do. In the example of international trade between the United States and Colombia, mercantilist theory must be taken into account. The maximization of economic power is measured by a given state’s material capabilities. According to Waltz’s description of contemporary realism, when discussing the balance of power in a system it is necessary to evaluate the given state’s status in terms of material power and assess the relative gains it would acquire by taking certain actions. (...continued...)

(...continued from previous post...)
Therefore, when considering the players involved in the ATPDEA, a realist would evaluate each state’s material power and draw conclusions as to how each state is making relative gains. For example, the Andean countries gain a relative advantage to other, non-participating states by enjoying duty-free access to a large variety of exports from the United States. The United States does not necessarily obtain any relative gains by taking part in the ATPDEA, however; its involvement decreases the phenomenon of drug propagation worldwide, thereby making it an absolute advantage rather than a relative gain. In the realist viewpoint, the tendency toward self-help outweighs any inclination to selflessly improve the world.
The author’s overly optimistic, liberal opinion of the outcomes of the ATPDEA grossly ignores several realist points that are relevant to the circumstances of the agreement. He only considers the potential absolute gains without regard to relative gains, naively assumes that high interaction between countries ensures trust and open communication about intentions, and disregards the notion that power maximization is obtained through material capabilities. By reflecting on both liberal and realist theories, a more comprehensive, accurate approach to international cooperation can be reached.

Indeed the ATPDEA works to create U.S. influence in South America by creating development opportunities in the participating countries and to reduce the production of illegal narcotics. The idea was to promote free trade in reducing tariffs for exports to the United States to reduce the pay-off in trading non-regulated illegal substances. With tariffs removed an entrepreneur could trade bilaterally with the U.S. for minimum costs. However, free trade worries some because of its precedent of killing jobs, stratifying the classes, and abdicating human-rights abuses in developing nations. In this article, “Trade Disunion: Santos’s China Card” the author explains why the U.S. should quickly renew the ATPDEA using liberal ideas, such as seeking absolute gains, to promote free trade and realist assumption, based on hegemonic powers, to scare the U.S. into action; however, the author neglects to mention that the U.S. benefits from not having a free trade agreement because of the money it pulls in with tariffs.
It’s not enough to say that this author takes one side or the other in his article. In fact he uses a blend of assumptions from two separate forms of international relations theory. First, through their presentation of Columbian disdain, the author insists that the U.S. benefits more through free trade between the countries referring to the Classic Liberal concept of absolute gains realized through interdependence. The author here seems to hold the believe, like any classical liberal, that free trade would reduce the problems that this country has when it comes to human rights abuses, encourage the density of ties, help the country realize efficiency, by bringing up arguments Columbians make about how economic growth will strengthen human rights and that they are determined in their prosecution of criminal gangs. On the other hand, this author asserts that China’s rising influence in Columbia should strike fear in the decision makers in Washington, a realist assumption based on ideas put forth by John J. Mearshimer concerning hegemonic states’ attempts to retain sole power, economic and militaristic, in their region.
The idea that simple domestic political squabbles based solely on human rights issues are what keeps the U.S. from renewing the agreement reflects this author’s assumption that the U.S. indeed does want to realize absolute gains and promote free trade as a liberal nation. The idea that the U.S. only stands to gain from this agreement neglects to consider the relative gains the U.S. can make in this situation. Seeing that anarchy governs the international arena the realist proposes that states can never know the intentions of other states and therefore seek to maximize power through the realization of relative gains. By not renewing the agreement the U.S., as Columbia’s biggest trade partner, stands to gain a significant amount of tariff money collected on the imports of Columbian goods. As the author notes, pro-American sentiments dominate this country. So the U.S. is currently the biggest influence on their foreign policy. The U.S. appears to have a short term substantial advantage over Columbia if they adopt a mercantilist approach to trade, benefitting from the money they pull in and the few resources they have to expend in helping the countries develop. I also want to point out that free trade encourages human rights abuses, indirectly if not directly, because the promotion of international trade encourages companies to lower living wages and benefits to help the country compete in global trading with other countries who outsource their labor to those states with much lower wages. So the assumption that human rights abuses will diminish with the free trade stems from a classical liberal idea that all humans when engaged in their attempts to create economic success see no need for hostility and will respect freedom of individuals that continues to be disproved by the exploitative actions of international corporations.

For what it's worth another example of what U.S' main neighbour can get: Canada has a F.T.A. with Costa Rica since 2002 and the F.T.A. with Colombia was enacted by Canada but not yet by Colombia. Colombia is Canada’s 2nd biggest export market in Latin America and Costa Rica is 15th. For imports, Colombia is 6th and Costa Rica is 10th.
Ignore why Colombia has not enacted the F.T.A with Canada yet. Maybe U.S Embassy in Bogota has requested not to do so? ie: Canada is a good potential supplier of wheat to Colombia away of the U.S product.

The United States is a nation that tends to contradict itself. It seeks both relative and absolute gains on the global scale, and because of this desire for hegemonic power, continues to act at a liberal state at times and flip-flop to realist at others. This is one of the flaws of a nation with such a diverse group of people governing it. In the case of Columbia, the US seems indecisive as to how it plans to deal with trade relations. It seems clear to me however, that a classical liberalist approach to the situation would both reduce drug violence and increase both nations’ profits.
The author of this article is clearly trying to remain unbiased, yet evidently sees the benefits of a mutually beneficial solution. Neither Columbia nor the US gains from union leaders being killed and by ratifying the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) they can both have absolute gains. This concept is key to classical liberalism’s method of dealing with the anarchy of interactions between nation-states. Without an arbiter to say that things are right or wrong, nations can act however they so choose. However, it is to society’s overall advantage to benefit others as much as possible, and in return remain peaceful.
In addition, the article mentions that the US is trying to protect its own interests. This follows the theory of relative gains. However with Columbia’s alternative trade partner, China, gaining power, it is not in the US’s interest in terms of relative gains to not ratify the ATPDEA. The relative power gained by China is far greater than that gained by Columbia if the two were to exclusively trade, and with the US losing the relative power race to China, it is certainly not in the US’s interest to be stingy with its trade partners. In fact, international free market trade is probably the best way to increase the US’s profit on the global scale.
Classical liberalism continues to provide the greatest absolute gains, and works best because each actor is simultaneously looking out for their own self-interest, and the good of society as a whole. Columbia only needs a trading partner, and although the US is apparently favored at the moment, “Colombia is getting fed up with American disdain,” and probably is ready to abandon the US and seek other trade partners shortly. This free trade deal is important to the US’s relative power advantage over China and the US cannot afford to let Columbia suffer with their drug dealer problems. Even if it costs the US to deal with the drug issues, the net gain from steady trade with Columbia will outweigh this.
The intricacies of trade agreements lie in the intentions of nations. The US is trying to maintain its place in global hegemony, thus is willing to take minor trade setback. However, if the trade is instead transferring to the US’s main rival, the story changes. It comes down to a matter of who poses the biggest threat to the US’s relative power from its government’s perspective. Threat assessment in this situation has lead to the conclusion that a classical liberalist approach will result in both a relative and absolute power advantage. The benefits of classical liberalism are clear here and hopefully the US legislative branch will soon ratify the trade agreement if they want to maintain a foothold among the highest world powers.

The Economist article, “Trade Disunion,” examines the trade relationship between Columbia and the United States, and the recent issues concerning the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA). The author makes the case that the United States needs to renew the ATPDEA, and cites specific barriers, including concerns about the humanitarian situation in Columbia, as fixable to its renewal. This is a fitting case of liberal theory because it examines the liberal ideals of absolute gains and increased cooperation that are achieved with the renewal of an institution: ATPDEA. I agree with the author in encouraging the United States to renew the ATPDEA with a liberal approach because of the absolute gains created for both actors, including a more prosperous and stable Columbia, as well as more markets for the US to compete in.
To analyze the trade relationship between the US and Columbia through a liberal lens, as the author does, one must make assumptions about the world around him. First of all, in order to use liberalism in an analysis, one must assume that absolute gains, and not relative gains, are the end goal for the actors involved. If one is pursuing absolute gains it means that they are working for the benefit of all involved, instead of increasing their own power as much as possible compared to others. This concept of absolute gains, however, is only possible if other terms are met. Reducing private information, for example, must be a priority of the actors involved. Sharing information creates credibility and trust among each other. That trust then leads to stable expectations about the future where all parties have faith that one another will honor their commitments down the road. These factors are easier to achieve in this specific example because there is a limited number of actors: two to be exact. A lower number of actors means that there is less variability and it is easier to discover a harmony of interests. If two or more actors have a harmony of interest it makes interaction that much easier. The combination of all these factors, with the final goal of absolute gains, all of which must be assumed to analyze any issue with a liberal lens, define a liberal theory.
Now that we have laid out the necessary criteria for a liberal analysis, we can apply the theory to the case example of trade between the US and Columbia. First we must define the parameters of absolute gains for this specific example. “Mr. Santos hopes the agreement will boost investment. But the ATPDEA, a tool in the American drug war, already helps Colombian exporters, so their American counterparts have more to gain from ratifying the trade agreement…many Colombians argue that by boosting economic growth the agreement would help strengthen human rights.” (Economist). Aside from the financial gains that both countries will receive from competitive advantage, each country also gains in a non-financial way. The US gets help and cooperation for its War on Drugs, and Columbia sees increasing human rights because of an escalating economy from free market trade. These gains on both sides show what can be achieved when states engage in liberal policies instead of destructive realist policies. Also, in the future, the increase in human rights (or judicial equality) will lead Columbia to become a more liberal state in the second image, which will make them engage with institutions, which will make them more liberal and keep the cycle going.
With respect to information sharing, the United States is being open about its debate on whether or not to renew the treaty. While it was put off for quite a while, its renewal is now officially on the agenda. By making the debate public, and publishing a report to the Senate Finance Committee, the US reveals a pattern of openness. They are showing their intentions, proving to Columbia that they are willing to have an open dialogue and process, and thus Columbia can trust them and have faith in long-term interaction. This is important because without trust there is anarchy which leads to skepticism and, as is often the case, the pursuit of relative gains whether or not it is in the best interest of the other actors.
This example can be applied to many others in the region and around the globe. With increased interaction through institutions, state actors can recognize absolute gains. These gains help stabilize developing countries and provide opportunity for economic growth into new markets for developed countries. In the end, all sides benefit, and they have the stability and interaction provided by the institution to thank for that.